Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

. . . Just a few things I'm wondering about though. Being earthquake-prone as it is, isn't Japan supposed to have some sort of early detection system? . . .

There really isn't any such thing as an early detection system for earthquakes, unlike for volcanic eruptions or tsunamis. People are still trying to find reliable precursors to predict them, and still failing as of the moment.

<_< Don't be alarmed. It's just Traece. I know, I know... My presence brings much splendor, but no harm will come to you or anyone else.

I read the description for this one, and here was my immediate thought:Disaster Report: The Game: The Anime Anyone else sort of get that impression? But no, despite that it should prove to be interesting and I'll have to pick it up and see what it's like.

Also, as far as an Earthquake Detection System goes, although there are stations for monitoring tremors and such all over the globe those sorts of readings aren't even close to being well in advance. Think of it like predicting the weather, except the weather is underground. Yeah, pretty freaky eh? :P We can barely predict what the weather will be like, even if we can see it.
Now earthquake protection is a different story entirely, and quite a fascinating one. As far as small building go, to my knowledge protection from earthquakes generally relies on how sturdy the structure is, since it's so small. Skyscrapers however, are actually made with systems to allow it to move during an earthquake. So if you're ever in the vicinity of an earthquake and you see skyscrapers moving from side to side, it's because they are moving on their own with the earthquake to prevent collapse or tipping.

__________________

Last edited by Traece; 2009-07-10 at 11:28.
Reason: Use Protection. ... On your buildings.

sidewalk is in its own layer and composed of a top and bottom; both are distorted slightly to simulate the falling down movement

all but the background have aplied a shaking motion

yes only the animated bits break around 85% of the picture don't even nudge; these include tiles, other similar visible structures etc.

20:54 - 20:59 similar to 20:37

20:59 - 21:04

rain of debris (lineart with or with out a fill to represent glass and rocks? have to wonder what those buildings are made of)

animation on debris is jerky and short; repeats 4 times

two statics, one is moving side to side and shaking, on is of the building and simply moving down

glass break animation; its 1 frame, overlap of some lineart glass break and some white fill

short smoke animation at the end of the sequence

21:04 - 21:10

static smoke (ya rly!) moving right to left

shaking of static with character animation;

character animation consists of a few frames with very long pause between the key frames

zoom of entire frame

Total time spent on eye candy: 83s or 1minute 23seconds. Out of this, 65s of pans, 19s of things with animation and 34s of scenes with 3D fun.

The point is that the disaster scenes and city scape scenes are zero compared to the production value of the indoor scenes and character animation in the in-house scenes so stop hyping up and going with the flow since there's nothing praise worthy there unless you enjoy sideshows.

...[wonderful detailed list of outdoor backgrounds].... The point is that the disaster scenes and city scape scenes are zero compared to the production value of the indoor scenes and character animation in the in-house scenes so stop hyping up and going with the flow since there's nothing praise worthy there unless you enjoy sideshows.

Thanks very much for the detailed look at this. It really helped me to see. However, technical difficulty does not equal artistic excellence. In fact, if they are able to work this magic without breaking the bank, they deserve even more credit.

Wow, I'm really pleasantly suprised. I like how they allowed us to have a feel for the characters before everything happened, and there's something about the girl, I forget her name, but I feel like I can relate to her, her mannerisms and thoughts are realistic, but it makes her a sympathetic character. Not in the feel sorry for sense, but in a more relateable way. Her cell phone use, mocking of her mom (which was hilarious imo), and her mannerisms feel real to me. And I'm in her age group (or was recently in middle school, well...maybe not sooo recently), so I think I would know what I'm talking about here. I'm definately looking forward to the next episode. And on Cat's oh so cheerful response, I feel that the characterization is good enough to overlook whatever animation flaws it has, because usually if the conversation is mundane, I'll notice the pan and scan shots easily, but I was too drawn into the story and the characters to notice it. Tokyo Magnitude 8.0 may not be heaven's godsend anime of the century, but I feel it has a lot of potential, and is worth giving a try.

I'm definitely enjoying the show so far, but it's not what I was expecting it to be (I was expecting a large ensemble show but instead it's about a single young girl). I also dislike how she keeps repeating her thoughts for the audience over and over. We'd get the idea that she's bored and disappointed with her life and future prospects even without her constant reminders. Besides that though, I enjoyed that they took their time to introduce us to her and her world before the impact to give depth to how it's going to change her life from here on out, good restraint on the director's part.

Well, what can i say ... not much i suppose, because the episode nearly bored me to tears While there is obviously the need to introduce some characters through whom the catastrophe will be explored, but i really couldn't stomach just how flat out tedious the atmosphere felt. I suppose they wanted a reflection of the life as felt by our female protagonist, but i honestly can't think of a more boring way at the moment than to spend 20 minutes following around a bratty teenager and her dissatisfaction with everything around her. I mean ... i came for the earthquake, but ended up with a disgruntled teenager. Realistic as it might be for her age, it lasted for way too long to keep my interest going.

Animation and design wise this series has very little to brag about either - it looks unimpressive for the most part, save for some specific moments. Character designs are very minimalistic and generally gives gives off a "low key" vibe. That is to say, this show was not much to look at either - there were scenes that looked genuinely nice (like the bridge), but generally very little to write home about. It gets the job done for the mood of the show, but nothing really impressive.

Overall ...i dunno, if asked to summarize my thoughts on the episode in one word, i would say "boring". I guess i was expecting something else for the show that was supposed to be about an earthquake. I mean, yes - we are getting there, but i can't say these 20 minutes did anything to raise my interest in the premise. I was waiting for an earthquake before the first episode, and i still am. Lets see what the next episode does once we actually get there, but this one did very little for me personally.

Boring huh. . well, this one surely representated that. But at least, it can conveys well at how the main character was feeling (boredom) at the time the episode airs. Then makes us as the watcher to feel exactly the same feeling as her, lol.

I never disputed the realism of it, as it did a fairly credible portrayal of a rebellious child her age, and a "out of touch" family. Just that ...this was not what i really expected (nor wanted, after seeing it) from the show - for a show about an earthquake there was a distinct lack of said earthquake, and an overdose of a tedious teenage girl, and i can't say the later aspect is going to make me appreciate the former any more when it actually hits. (I was lured in by false advertising!). Yes, you probably need a character to place on the stage, but for me personally there was nothing about the episode that would make me want to see more of her. Or of the show, for that matter, but heh - i suppose the next episode will make or break the show for me ... if i actually summon the will to watch it that is

Ofcourse you need characters for the stage. What false advertising? Because the show is called Tokyo Magnitude 8.0, you expected all the episodes to show buildings shaking and falling apart? What did you expect to see from a movie called "American Pie"?
And the girl is not just a "bratty teenager". There is depth to her character; sure she rebels a little but the way she cares for her brother and how she is ashamed of the biker girl, is very telling. There is depth there, you just don't see it. What type of character would you have wanted to focus on, who would not have been "tedious"?

If you're not into the slice-of-life thing that's fine, but arguing that a show should not have characters.. That's absurd. Well, the next episodes will probably have a different tone due to the catastrophe, but I for one hope they manage to keep the familiarity of the slice-of-life feel between the characters. They have pulled it off perfectly, the animation is great and adds to the feel, and the whole thing is very enjoyable.

You don't get it, its not that it should not have characters but as Sky pointed out this intro was too tedious and all explaining. We don't really need it to be this detailed as it spoils future "remember when..." moments. What would you rather have: a) re-runs of scenes you saw b) flashbacks to scenes you did not know. With so much depth even if they don't show scenes we've seen, as far as her family life and such not a lot can be put forth to surprise us with; I'd rather they rushed it and we got b) instead.

For a show promising tension and exciting scenes, it sure was very slow with its first episode.

I would prefer for yo to not put words in my mouth, thank you. First of, on her being a bratty teenager - she is one, that is not debatable. This doesn't exclude depth like you seem to be assuming, and i never once implied she doesn't have it. I said i find her tedious to follow, and that has nothing to do with depth or lack of it, but me simply not caring about what her character is about. (Which is a bratty teenager).

Once again, i never stated the show shouldn't have characters - i said the ones we have presented i find uninspiring and they fail to raise my appreciation of the show, nor do i get excited about the prospects of her being the characters whose viewpoint the show will revolve around. This has nothing to do with slice of life or not (which is a genre i have nothing against and gladly watch shows of), but a simple issue of characterization i don't find appealing. This is potentially liable to change with time, nor are my preferences speaking for other people as there is nothing wrong with finding such a character or the mood that comes with her interesting, but for me personally this was about as flat out boring as possible.

This sentence of Cats summed up my feelings on the episode quite well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cats

For a show promising tension and exciting scenes, it sure was very slow with its first episode.

I never disputed the realism of it, as it did a fairly credible portrayal of a rebellious child her age, and a "out of touch" family. Just that ...this was not what i really expected (nor wanted, after seeing it) from the show - for a show about an earthquake there was a distinct lack of said earthquake, and an overdose of a tedious teenage girl, and i can't say the later aspect is going to make me appreciate the former any more when it actually hits. (I was lured in by false advertising!). Yes, you probably need a character to place on the stage, but for me personally there was nothing about the episode that would make me want to see more of her. Or of the show, for that matter, but heh - i suppose the next episode will make or break the show for me ... if i actually summon the will to watch it that is

I totally disagree.

The show came up with exactly what I expected to see. I don't know what you were expecting... Care to explain in detail?

I think when you get something that is supposed to be about an earthquake, it is the people in it that matters, not the earthquake itself. We are trying to explore the minds of the distressed victims. I think that a person going to see this should ask themselves how they would feel and react in such a situation. Here we are given a VERY realistic depiction of an andolescent girl's life, and there already was an incredible about of character development in just one episode. This way, the viewer can somehow relate to her or the family's situation in life and say "Hey, I had thoughts like this at that age." The only difference is that many or most of us haven't had our lives just flip upside down like we are about to see in the future episodes.

I was actually worried coming into this episode that they'd just jump into the earthquake scene without any lead up or development. I found it anything but boring...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cats

You don't get it, its not that it should not have characters but as Sky pointed out this intro was too tedious and all explaining. We don't really need it to be this detailed as it spoils future "remember when..." moments. What would you rather have: a) re-runs of scenes you saw b) flashbacks to scenes you did not know. With so much depth even if they don't show scenes we've seen, as far as her family life and such not a lot can be put forth to surprise us with; I'd rather they rushed it and we got b) instead.

How does it spoil future flashbacks? The flashbacks would probably not be about this episode... It would most likely further detail the life she had before the earthquake. It doesn't ruin the development at all, because there are so many things they haven't even touched on in her life. Also, we haven't even met all the characters and have had them developed at all in this show...

=====

Anyway, I really enjoyed this first episode. Honestly, I'm willing to say that this was defintely the best first episode of any anime this season. Only real negative criticisms I have are that the OP and ED are not very good (And feel out of place).

I thoroughly enjoyed the more serious nature of this anime. It's a shame that not more anime are serious in nature. They are far too few in number.

The animation wasn't anything special, but it wasn't bad by any means. I expect a lot better visuals in future episodes.

And man, a show with actual well done character development... It's been awhile! No thanks to the anime studios churning out pure moe and girls with guns.